If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not if I have to pay for it, no. If they have their own insurance then fine. If your sister was relying on the gubment to take care of her and your niece, as the old saying goes, if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em.

Homosexuality aside, anybody can ask for coverage to have a baby whether it be through getting sperm donation, using another woman's eggs/womb, etc. Should we cover sperm donation for one woman because she's heterosexual, but not another woman because she's homosexual? Keep in mind that neither one of them can conceive without sperm.

Why should "we" be covering any of this? Any woman, gay, straight, bi or Underground Panther, has a right to try to give birth, but that doesn't mean that somebody else has to pay for it. If their insurance company is willing to underwrite the treatments, and they are covered (in which case the premiums will reflect the cost of the coverage), then that's a private transaction between the company and the individuals, but it becomes a public issue when the government mandates coverage for individuals, at which point the insurers have to either raise their premiums to cover the actual costs of coverage, or they have to ration care. This is the result of socializing medicine. We not only have to pay for increased coverage, but we have to subsidize choices that we find disagreeable, immoral or otherwise idiotic. A straight couple that can't conceive is not my concern, unless they demand that I pay for their conception.

Originally Posted by Lanie

And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument. If it's all about conceiving, then rights should be denied to all people who are infertile including the elderly.

Anybody remember the 50 year old woman who had her daughter's eggs implanted inside of her to have her husband's baby? I heard about it from a news special years ago. Obviously, she was infertile, and that was totally messed up.

Sirois said she's offered for years to become a surrogate mother for Angel her if a doctor said she shouldn't become pregnant. Hebert, of Presque Isle, said she and husband Brian Hebert got that word last summer.
Angel's egg, fertilized with Brian Hebert's sperm, was successfully implanted.

So, just like a man, these women didn't even have a womb. Biologically speaking, they could never ever have a baby with anybody (man, woman, etc). It just wasn't biologically possible.

Oh, and Octomom got help conceiving. There was no call in that at all. This woman already had six kids and was on public assistance.

So, either everybody should qualify for fertility treatments or nobody should. I personally think we have more important things to cover. I also think it's wrong that people won't give adoption a chance (although the gays have an excuse in a lot of states, which is more than I can say for hetersexual married couples being picky about how to have a child).

Whether something is biologically impossible because the couple is gay, because the woman has no womb, because the guy is shooting planks, the woman's too old to be having kids (selfish, sorry, but it is) or whatever; biologically impossible is biologically impossible is biologically impossible. Period.

The problem with adoption is that the states have a vested interest in the status quo, as they get money for fostering kids, pay out a pittance and put all manner of obstacles in the was of parents who want to adopt. Talk to NJCardFan about the problems that he's gone through trying to adopt kids that he and his family have fostered.

Octomom was an outrage. She should have been kicked off of public assistance. If her treatments were paid for by the taxpayer, then the approving authority should have been fired.

The problem that you don't understand is that when the state becomes the arbiter of who gets what, allocation of resources becomes embroiled in legal equality, rather than supply and demand. In a private medical system, the state doesn't force insurers to cover gay couples that want to have children, and it doesn't ban them from doing so. The insurers determine the costs and the benefits, build the actuarial tables and charge premiums that will cover the potential costs. The sexual behavior of the insured doesn't matter, unless it increases the risks associated with coverage, in which case, the premiums rise. However, in a public system, where the state is the only authority, the determination of who gets coverage is based on political pressure, with the noisiest activists getting what they want, and those who aren't politically active or connected (i.e., people who are focused on businesses, families or anything that doesn't get put up to a vote) get shorted. Politics becomes pervasive, and so does the corruption that politics brings.

And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument. If it's all about conceiving, then rights should be denied to all people who are infertile including the elderly.

You either don't understand biology or are being purposely intellectually dishonest. There is a vast difference between a medical condition that causes infertility and being unable to conceive because it's biologically impossible.

You either don't understand biology or are being purposely intellectually dishonest. There is a vast difference between a medical condition that causes infertility and being unable to conceive because it's biologically impossible.

She's obviously not making the connection on why this is such a stupid piece of legislation.

Why should "we" be covering any of this? Any woman, gay, straight, bi or Underground Panther, has a right to try to give birth, but that doesn't mean that somebody else has to pay for it.

I would agree with that. I personally don't think we should cover fertility treatments for anybody. People are sick, and we need to put that first. I just object to these ideas that it should be covered for others, but not gays. If these treatments are going to be covered for some, then it should be covered for others. If it's going to be denied for some, then it should be denied for others. I would think the only people who should be denied coverage for fertility treatments (if we're going to have coverage) are people with a history of violence. Maybe also people who don't show financial stability. We shouldn't cover somebody who can't support their kids either. But blocking somebody because they're gay? No. Oh heck, gays have been getting this stuff covered. It's not like there's a check box at the fertility clinics for gay and straight.

But once again, let me state again that I really don't care to cover fertility treatments in general. I had a friend last year who went without his heart medication some after losing his job. He did have difficulty. His mother was sick for a long time (no insurance) until she finally ended up in the hospital and they signed her up for medicaid. I have another friend with MS and Diabetes who couldn't have her medicine for a long time and couldn't work either. Her doctor said he didn't know why she was still alive (a miracle). These are just people I know. We've got thousands of people in this country who are struggling to get their medication, who have a terminal illness and don't know how to get their surgery paid for. There are people who have dental pain, but no insurance or money to get it fixed.

But we're worried about fertility treatments? Really? Let's figure out how to help the people who are already here before making new people.

Why should "we" be covering any of this? Any woman, gay, straight, bi or Underground Panther, has a right to try to give birth, but that doesn't mean that somebody else has to pay for it. If their insurance company is willing to underwrite the treatments, and they are covered (in which case the premiums will reflect the cost of the coverage), then that's a private transaction between the company and the individuals, but it becomes a public issue when the government mandates coverage for individuals, at which point the insurers have to either raise their premiums to cover the actual costs of coverage, or they have to ration care. This is the result of socializing medicine. We not only have to pay for increased coverage, but we have to subsidize choices that we find disagreeable, immoral or otherwise idiotic. A straight couple that can't conceive is not my concern, unless they demand that I pay for their conception.

Precisely. That is what is so evil about Obamacare. As long as a private company is willing to insure anything, and as long as a customer of that company is willing to pay for such insurance, it's not ultimately our concern nor any cost to us. The only reason we are even having this discussion now is that Obamacare has taken over private health insurance and gets to dictate the terms. If the government wants more coverage--even if we fundamentally disagree with it, logically or morally--we still have to pay for it.

I don't want to pay for fertility treatments for gay men to get a surrogate or for a gay woman to be artificially inseminated. I don't want to pay for that cost for anyone outside of a heterosexual marriage. But my moral standards be damned--I still have to pay for it. For those of us who believe that contributing financially to sin makes us also culpable, it is a moral outrage to have to do so.

I would agree with that. I personally don't think we should cover fertility treatments for anybody. People are sick, and we need to put that first. I just object to these ideas that it should be covered for others, but not gays. If these treatments are going to be covered for some, then it should be covered for others. If it's going to be denied for some, then it should be denied for others. I would think the only people who should be denied coverage for fertility treatments (if we're going to have coverage) are people with a history of violence. Maybe also people who don't show financial stability. We shouldn't cover somebody who can't support their kids either. But blocking somebody because they're gay? No. Oh heck, gays have been getting this stuff covered. It's not like there's a check box at the fertility clinics for gay and straight.

But once again, let me state again that I really don't care to cover fertility treatments in general. I had a friend last year who went without his heart medication some after losing his job. He did have difficulty. His mother was sick for a long time (no insurance) until she finally ended up in the hospital and they signed her up for medicaid. I have another friend with MS and Diabetes who couldn't have her medicine for a long time and couldn't work either. Her doctor said he didn't know why she was still alive (a miracle). These are just people I know. We've got thousands of people in this country who are struggling to get their medication, who have a terminal illness and don't know how to get their surgery paid for. There are people who have dental pain, but no insurance or money to get it fixed.

But we're worried about fertility treatments? Really? Let's figure out how to help the people who are already here before making new people.

Okay, you're getting closer, but you're still not quite getting it. We shouldn't cover anyone for anything. It's not my job (or yours) to pay for somebody else's healthcare. Healthcare isn't a right, it's a service, which is a commodity, and like any commodity, when you distort the market by screwing with the price, you get disconnects between the supply and the demand. We've been lowering the price for decades by making healthcare part of everyone's employment, with the consequence that the consumers of medical services don't pay for what they consume. The third parties who pay for healthcare, the government and insurance companies, cannot restrict the demand, and they cannot expand the supply, so they ration services, either by denying coverage or through restrictions on services. If you want to reduce the cost of medical care in the aggregate, eliminate the middlemen and have people pay for their own insurance.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Precisely. That is what is so evil about Obamacare. As long as a private company is willing to insure anything, and as long as a customer of that company is willing to pay for such insurance, it's not ultimately our concern nor any cost to us. The only reason we are even having this discussion now is that Obamacare has taken over private health insurance and gets to dictate the terms. If the government wants more coverage--even if we fundamentally disagree with it, logically or morally--we still have to pay for it.

I don't want to pay for fertility treatments for gay men to get a surrogate or for a gay woman to be artificially inseminated. I don't want to pay for that cost for anyone outside of a heterosexual marriage. But my moral standards be damned--I still have to pay for it. For those of us who believe that contributing financially to sin makes us also culpable, it is a moral outrage to have to do so.

Again, it's not simply the sexual morality of fertility treatments, it's the broader moral issue of people expecting someone to provide a service for free. Doctors, nurses and other medical practicioners are not slaves. They have a right to charge market prices for their services, and if the government has a problem with that, then it can propose a Constitutional amendment to give it control over the economic transactions that people engage in (the Interstate Commerce Clause was meant to give the federal government the authority to settle disputes between the states in their commerce, not to give the feds the power to control all transactions that cross state lines). The true evil of Obamacare isn't that it imposes immorality on some people, it's that it imposes tyranny on all people and shreds the Constitution in the process. It turns us from a free people who can make their own health care choices into a population of serfs, dependent upon the largess of our ruling class for our medical needs. That's the evil.

And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument.

It DOES support the argument that homosexuality is a birth defect.

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad